03 March 2019 10:17 AM

The State Seizes Yet More Power From Parents - and it is the Tories who are responsible

Revolutionaries love to indoctrinate children. You can look up yourself who said these words ‘When an opponent declares, “I will not come over to your side,” I calmly say, “Your child belongs to us already... What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community.”

But it does not really matter who it was. It is horribly true, and it is what all these meddlers think, and why they are all so keen on getting control of schools and youth movements.

This week, they took a great step towards their goal, which is the eradication of all that is left of conservative Christian opinion in this country.

Some of you will be astonished (I am not) that it was a nominally Conservative government which last week announced the extension of compulsory ‘relationship’ education and ‘sex education’ throughout the school system.

Of course, in our innocence-free society, there is nobody over the age of about seven who does not know how babies are made. This ‘education’ will be about what to think, not what to do. If you can ever get your own children’s schools to disgorge the material they are using, you will find that it will cover the whole broad front of sexual liberation from condoms to sex-changes.

Many beliefs will become unsayable, and so unthinkable. It is already the case, for instance, that you will be greeted with shock and anger in most schools if you say that marriage is between a man and a woman, and that it is better than alternative forms of family.

If you are wise, you will not risk saying any such thing. Here’s a small illustration of how much narrower the range of permitted speech is than it used to be. It is now 20 years since Channel Four launched its TVdrama series ‘Queer as Folk’, in which the main characters were homosexuals.

I was asked to watch it, and to comment on it on a TV programme, and said that it was cultural propaganda, intended to persuade viewers that homosexuality was normal behaviour. This sounds about right to me. That’s what it was. But the left-wing commentators who have dug this out of the archives expect present-day readers to be shocked that anyone ever had the nerve to say any such thing.

If I live another twenty years, the fact that I ever dared to say and think this will certainly be used to try to keep me off the internet, and quite possibly to prosecute me. If you think I am joking, stick around. The Times columnist Janice Turner, miles to the left of me, is already feeling the cold breath of the thought police on her neck, for bravely resisting conformism on the Transgender issue.

This will happen because of this compulsory indoctrination in school, approved by a man called Damian Hinds, of whom almost nothing interesting is known, who has somehow become Secretary of State for Education.

Mr Hinds has openly broken a clear pledge given two years ago by a Tory government. The genuinely conservative MP Edward Leigh asked him a quietly devastating question in Parliament ‘All previous Conservative Governments … have given an untrammelled right to parents to remove their children from sex education, but here, in certain circumstances, that right has been transferred to the head teacher—a fundamental shift of power to the state. How does that square with what Edward Timpson, the then Minister for Vulnerable Children and Families, said during the passage of the Children and Social Work Bill? He said:

“We have committed to retain a right to withdraw from sex education in RSE, because parents should have the right, if they wish, to teach sex education themselves in a way that is consistent with their values.”’

Mr Hinds did not answer it. So another Tory MP who doesn’t toe the line, Julian Lewis, pressed the point: ‘He keeps adding the words, “unless there are exceptional circumstances”. Why have those words been added? In what circumstances would ​a head teacher overrule a parent? Is not the likely effect of this going to be that in some cases, instead of children getting necessary sex education in schools, more parents are going to keep their children out of school?’ Mr Hinds avoided that too. The law now sides with the state against the parent, and that is that.

And this was the moment at which a vital freedom died. The 1980 prophecy of that appalling fanatic Lady Helen Brook ‘From birth till death it is now the privilege of the parental State to take major decisions - objective, unemotional, the State weighs up what is best for the child’ has now come true, and under a Tory government propped up by supposedly ultra-conservative Ulstermen.

I quite understand why people don’t fancy having Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister. But if this sort of Trotskyist cultural revolution carries on while the Tories are in office, I am not sure it will make all that much difference.

MPs now see at first hand how feeble our justice system is

I hope that the MP Fiona Onasanya will soon turn up in the House of Commons wearing an electronic tag. This is because it will be educational for all the other MPs, who will then find out what everyone else has known for years - that our criminal justice system is made of cardboard.

I don’t really care all that much about Ms Onasanya. I’m even prepared to accept that she may be innocent (as she says she is) of the charge of which she was convicted, perverting the course of justice. But the facts are these. She was sentenced to three months in prison for what many would see as a very serious offence. And she was out after 28 days.

Prison sentences, even when they are imposed, are more or less fictional. And the really odd thing is that it is precisely this weakness which persuades so many people that they too will get away with crime. And so they break the law, in such numbers that even our absent police and feeble courts have to catch and imprison some of them. And that is why the prisons are so full. And that is why the sentences are so short and why prisoners are let out so quickly. Which is why….well, it reminds me of that old song ‘There’s a Hole in My Bucket’.

Oxford interviews some overseas applicants by telephone

Did you know that Oxford University sometimes interviews would-be overseas students by telephone? Nor did I. I thought a gruelling face-to-face meeting was unavoidable. I am fascinated by news that the number of UK students at Oxbridge is falling, while the number of foreign undergraduates is up. I am assured, however, that there is no connection between this development and the fact that non-EU students pay fees of up to £30,000 a year while tuition fees are capped at £9,250 a year for British and EU students. It is good to know that our great institutions are not influenced by the money-making frenzy which seems to have so many of our universities in its grip.

At least they can't pretend nobody warned them about marijuana

The government has now provided its entirely useless response to the petition which thousands of you so kindly signed, asking for an inquiry into the apparent link between marijuana and violence. Here it is:

It appears to have been written by a computer, wholly unaware of the fact that the police have stopped enforcing the drug laws. Even so, some good has been done. When the crisis is so bad and bloody that even ministers can see it, they won’t be able to pretend that they weren’t warned.

Share this article:

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Jeremy Bennington-Jagworth - there are plenty of people saying that homosexuality is wrong in itself, notably many adherents of the world’s major religions. Our host doesn’t discuss the issue much any more but he is on record as saying that he disapproves of any sexual activity outside lifelong marriage, including homosexuality.

I wouldn’t dare to challenge your obviously well-reasoned view that homosexuality is being relentlessly rammed down our throats, though I will ask why its promotion matters so much to you if, as you say, it isn’t wrong in itself.

Transgenderism is an entirely distinct issue and I agree that we should be very cautious about encouraging children to transition, particularly given the rate at which children with gender dysphoria ‘desist’ from their earlier desire to change their sex.

John Vernau - I will readily agree that if male paedophiles refrained from abusing young boys, there would be less child abuse. It seems a little tendentious, however, to describe these as ‘homosexual’ acts; while technically true, it ignores their most salient feature, which is that they involve children. Such acts, so far as I can see, have no bearing on the morality of homosexual acts between adults or whether these should be the subject of social stigma.

As to whether homosexual activity is morally equal to the heterosexual kind, I share your view that procreation is good and homosexuality morally neutral. But it won’t have escaped your attention that not all sexual activity between men and women leads to procreation. Insofar as it doesn’t, homosexuality and heterosexuality are morally on a par.

It was the use of a referendum that was 'silly' - not the result. A point that was made clear to readers of this blog by our host before the referendum was held. And I believe he was correct to do so.
If you mean do I believe that such complex decisions should not be left to the masses, the answer is I do. I do believe that out present system, despite weaknesses, is preferable.
I'm not concerned about leaving per se, I am concerned about the outcomes that might follow (having read Mr Wood's latest colourful response in respect of possible outcomes, I'm even more concerned!)

"I get it..." What you clearly don't get is that my view is now possibly held by the majority!

Mrs. May's former advisor has written that she saw leaving Europe, the result of the referundum, as a damage limitation exercise.
That explains it. Why we should have had a Prime Minister who believes in Brexit.
Now she has Rudd, Gauke and Clark, helping her by pushing, the last bargaining chip of "No deal" off the table.
Resulting in the tying of the Attorney General's hand behind his back.
The E.U. don't need to bother with Remainer friends like Rudd, Gauke and Clark.
No wonder May bought Rudd back in Cabinet.
Her brother Roland, must be laughing his socks off.
So is Blair.

Terence Courtnadge, "Would those two correspondents in their prime risk their reputation if they were in any doubt?". | 09 March 2019 at 03:04 PM.

Possibly not!
I'm just delighted that we are at last, hearing more of this sort of thing, we need it as heaven knows, we've heard so much negativity from tbe Remain side for so long.

But it is disheartening, at this late stage, to hear the PM weakening. For almost all the time leading up to this coming vote, she has firmly promised to deliver on Brexit but has recently been wavering, saying that in the event MP's vote against her, then "we don't know..." when before she was definite that it would mean we leave with no deal.

Only weeks ago, she was repeatedly explaining (to those who didn't seem to grasp that if you vote against a deal, it is therefore a 'no deal'!) that in the event that MP's vote against her, then we will leave without a deal, so I'm not sure what it is that she "doesn't know"!

She has more recently said, no deal could mean no Brexit. So begins the betrayal and those who said she was just "running down the clock" may well have been right.

I always thought it very odd, that she kept going back to Brussels to aledgedly get some changes to help MP's find the deal more acceptable when the EU masters said they'd completed negotiations and there was nothing left to say and they weren't prepared to re open them.
What on earth has she been doing over there? Personally, looking at how the likes of Merkell appear to welcome her back and forth, I think they've all just been having some good old lunches and dinners (at our expense of course) as they while away the time until the 29th of March. Business as usual on the 30th.

To give you an idea how some of our American 'elite' view marijuana, let me share a story:

I too believe PH is correct to suspect there is a connection between cannabis abuse and violence, and that it is very probable that the mind-altering characteristics of this drug can at times lead some vulnerable users to commit horrible, violent crimes. After all, let's be open-minded about this and explore all possibilities. Why rule anything out, especially the obvious?

So there is a local, call-in radio program, and the guest host at the show is a professor from a nearby liberal university. One of their topics was the incidence of rampage killings.

This was a great opportunity to call in, so I did, and I brought up my topic of the uncanny link between past marijuana abuse and rampage killings. My call was quickly put on hold by the moderator who said they would get back to me. There were some commercials, and then some other callers somehow got on the air ahead of me as I patiently waited for at least 15 minutes.

One of the other callers asked whether or not space aliens had sex. The professor was delighted and thought this was a wonderful question, whereupon the discussion wandered quite far from my topic.

Finally, I got to squeeze my question in, but instead of a thoughtful response to what I thought was profound topic, my idea was dismissed as though it was ridiculous and I was some kind of kook. Just to imagine that mind-altering drugs might be altering minds!

Anyway to answer the question about space aliens, the fine professor proclaimed a resounding "Yes indeed", space aliens if they exist, do have sex!

So 17 million people voting to take back control of their country’s laws in the largest ever vote in this country’s history is a “stupid event” is it? Wow, you let the mask slip there Alan. Thank you for revealing again your smug contempt for real democracy.

The people of this country have been subjected to two and half years of fanatical pro remain propaganda dished out by all the broadcasters ( many of which take EU money but don’t declare it.) All the while the politicians lied that they were delivering “Brexit means Brexit.” Even Jeremy Corbyn has now betrayed the five million Labour voters who voted Brexit. I sincerely hope they never vote Labour again.

The campaign never ended for Remain after the referendum because they never had any intention of implementing a Brexit vote. The lying politicians just bought time so they could overturn the will of the people. You must be very proud to stand with such dishonesty?

It’s amazing, but never surprising how smug, and lacking in humility the liberal authoritarian always is. Whether it be preventing free speech on university campauses or defending The BBCs highly partisan left wing agenda, or destroying British democracy and having uneleted officials make this country’s laws you are always on the wrong side of democracy and liberty.

I get it Alan, you don’t want the UK to be a Sovergignn State. You like having unelected officials taxing you and making our laws.I understand this. But to pretend you believe in democracy or you are fighting for democracy is an oxymoron.

Alan Thomas | 09 March 2019 at 04:49 PM re Michael Wood:
-"But I do know that 17.4 million would rejoice in a 'no deal' Brexit..."
Really? That might have been so at the time of the referendum when the question of 'deals or no-deals' was not a subject of great debate,"-

Alan Thomas,
All good things come at a price and that price is decided by all bad people that can't abide good people.
If Japanese car manufacturers desert the British market then we must make our own again.
If European 'suicidal' food producers decide to limit our supplies then we must dig for victory again.
If any foreign investors/owners or operators of our utilities fail to cooperate with our needs then we will commandeer those services back to public ownership.
Freedom is just that - it is the power to effect change for the good.

"But I do know that 17.4 million would rejoice in a 'no deal] Brexit..."

Really? That might have been so at the time of the referendum when the question of 'deals or no-deals' was not a subject of great debate, but I suspect that since then a fair number of those who live in areas where various industries are talking of possible 'exit' plans that that will have considerable consequences should that take place might well not be rejoicing.

I won't ask how you know that the number you mention will all be rejoicing... some might, human nature being what it is, have decided that the future could be less hunky-dory than is seemed on referendum day...

Vikki b :
Your mention of the article in the DT by Alistair Heath saying Britain could just 'walk away' without a deal and prosper, I thought it was good too ; there is another by Liam Halligan sending the same message. Would those two correspondents in their prime risk their reputation if they were in any doubt?

Alan Thomas…”At present, I'm not aware of any national newspaper that is still ringing the bell for a no-deal Brexit in a few day's time. Are you?”
Not at all. The media (and parliament) in general have never, nor show any signs of being on the side of majority opinion regarding anything – in fact they now resort to their denigration trick of labelling it ‘populism’.
But I do know that 17.4 million ‘brexiteers’ would rejoice in a ‘no deal’ Brexit - just to secure and ensure a clean, unambiguous break from all and any EU controls of our country and its people.
Anything else is not freedom or independence.

CharlieB
I'm very lucky that when I was a child and when my children were small, we didn't have to be exposed to the sexulisation of young that seems to be the trend today.
It's a sign to me that society has failed children if you have to discuss stuff so early.

I think right now that parents need to be educated on the materialisation of the young.
That happened very much more in my children's secondary school era.
Children seen as consumers, to fuel the bank balances of celebrity and sportspersons.
silly teachers, heads and my children's school who thought they were being trendy to soften uniform policy.
80's more mums were out working and buying their young the trainers, with the brand names.
So, we have reached a stage today where politicians and youth workers talk about young in the same breath as poverty becuase they feel left out without said brand of trainer of clothing label.
Maybe in a single mum household, maybe on benefits, which in my time as a parent was not meant to fund expensive trainers.
This links to the current knife crime, gang debate and is a part of the problem.
When young, often unmonitored children are used as,"runners" with promise of money for those desired trainers that have become the sum of their worth.
Quite sad, don't you think:? Spread so quickly by social media, the tap of a key.
Before that worrying crazes could be contained, now they our out of control, feeding the next one.
Need to create the healthy fear on the street to keep young safe. Stop and search is in force, which would act as a deterrent we so badly and immediately need.Also need to ignore Dianne Abbot when she remarks that often only a small amount of cannabis is found in the pockets.
The police need to start confiscating and destroying cannabis they find on young people. That it won't be tolerated.
Thus leading to parents coming on board if minors are stopped and also harming the business of the dealers often in certain housing, sitting pretty and subsidising their often already subsidised home, in many cases.
This vicious cycle of young and cannabis and the glamourising of gangs and certain clothing worn in the videos accessible on you tube is fuelling a good chunk of this culture.
Just as teachers turned a blind eye to smoking in the bike sheds and not informing parents, so they didn't take it seriously, when a lot had come through university by the 80's, like cannabis smoking politicians.
So police chiefs, ignore the insidious cycle and enable young to think cannabis use is ok. Even though it may be affecting school work, causing family problems and allowing house on estates to ply to young school children, leading to serious mental health issues.

Ken (talking to Alan, writes, "Sally's mantra of needing to get away from 'being ruled by unelected EU bureaucrats in Brussels' is in itself reason for reconsidering."

What is wrong with that? It's one of the main reasons for the Leave vote. We want to run our own country again.

There's a good article in The Telegraph "It's a complete myth that a 'no deal' Brexit would cripple the British economy." By Alistair Heath which shows up the nonsense being said by tbe Remainers. Worth reading.

> Posted by: Joshua Wooderson | 05 March 2019 at 07:36 PM:
> "Surely the real question (and what's behind all this dubious talk of purposes) is whether homosexual activity is, in itself, morally acceptable, and whether it should be socially accepted. And I've yet to hear a good argument why it isn't, or shouldn't be."

-----

Surely, the reason you've yet to hear a good argument why homosexual activity isn't, in itself, morally acceptable, and whether it should be socially accepted, is that no one, not even our host, is claiming any such thing.

What you do in the privacy of your own bedroom, or even home, etc.

The only thing being argued now is to what extent it should be PROMOTED and forced down our throats, so to speak!

When they can skip school for face-painted gay-pride marches, enjoy rainbow themed parties, and grow up to have fun in the gayest bars in town?!

Is it any wonder that, despite the difficulty and danger, already a fifth of post-op trans
people are RE transitioning, and half the rest, is it, are committing suicide!!!

When are we going to leave kids to work their way through their childhood confusion and hormonal disruption (with support and sympathy, but no more), instead of subjecting them to the child abuse, up to and including major surgery, of enforced compliance with right-on PC ideals for a rainbow utopia future?

Why can't we just wait and see how they turn out and then just accept them for what they are at the end of it?!

Then they might be better able to accept themselves for what they are too!!!

Thanks for the reply, Mr Wooderson. I wouldn’t say that there is “moral law etched into the fabric of the universe”. The second law of thermodynamics militates against the existence of life itself, let alone moral law. I don’t know where a sense of right and wrong might come from. Empathy perhaps? I’m agnostic as to its origin. In any case it seems to me to operate on a level more fundamental than intellectual argument, and most people seem to have it, whether they act on it or not.

I judge that making moral judgements is itself good. As only human beings can make moral judgements—and I prefer to be alive—I hold that life is good. If life is good, murder, abortion and euthanasia are bad. Homosexuality is morally neutral, unless it results in fewer people.

You concede that,
“It may well be that child abusers are disproportionately ‘homosexual’ ...”
And say,
“That doesn’t mean that those who are attracted to adults of the same sex are any more likely to abuse children than their heterosexual counterparts... “
But you also say,
“many abusers are not exclusively or even predominantly attracted to children”.
If the homosexual men in this latter category were to refrain from homosexual acts then there would be less sexual abuse of children. I suspect this was an intention of historical legal proscription of a certain act, which, incidentally, was also proscribed between the sexes; it was a law of equal ‘inopportunity’.

You apparently advocate,
“... full-blooded cultural acceptance [of homosexual acts]”, saying “This is distinct from promotion, which to my mind would involve proposing that homosexual behaviour is somehow superior to heterosexual behaviour.”
To my mind, as I consider reproductive acts good and homosexual acts merely neutral, to propose their moral equivalence is to promote the latter.

I see the usual pack of opportunist race-baiters have come out of the woodwork yet again, checking their carefully laid traps to see which hapless white person has been snared this time by the complex and ever-shifting linguistic etiquette web that they take it upon themselves to weave around the majority population; using their carefully prepared ground-bait, white guilt as the active ingredient to manufacture their synthetic outrage. Amber Rudd may well have much to apologise for, but her use of the term ‘coloured person’ isn’t one of them. If this was America of course, we could always ask the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People what they thought about it. I can’t help thinking that if it was a genuinely offensive term, the leading organisation campaigning for black civil rights in the US would have changed its name by now. But no, there it is in big letters on their website, so no wonder people get confused. Amber Rudd is a fool to apologise and grovel to these troublemakers who have not the slightest intention of ever forgiving her, for she is white and a Conservative. The whole charade is just a disingenuous game designed to continually trip up unwary white people and tar them with crude, groundless racist smears.

A fine example of this phenomenon occurred in May last year, when an American rapper, Kendrick Lamar set a snare for one of his white female fans when he selected her to get up on the stage and sing along with him on one of his “songs” but it was just a cruel trap. The number (M.A.A.D. City, if you care), is not only pornography of the most vile, crude kind but repeats the N-word dozens of times throughout. As soon as they sang the first N-word together, he stopped the music and attacked her for “using the racist term”. She apologised, but to no avail. The trap had been sprung and in her naïve enthusiasm to please him she had fallen headlong into it. Having gratuitously humiliated her as a racist in front of her friends and the rest of the audience who were by now, a baying mob, he summarily ordered her off the stage. Absolutely despicable behaviour. In fact all this faux outrage and offence-taking is nothing more than a form of aggression disguised as hurt feelings and it’s time it was called out at the highest level for the seditious nonsense it is.

Technical footnote: If she had tried to substitute ‘people of colour’ (5 syllables) for the forbidden term (2 syllables) it would have completely destroyed the rhythmic thrust of the piece and let’s face it, what would rap be without that relentless rhythmic thrust?

Colm J – had you read my comment properly, rather than rushing to accuse me of ‘anti-Catholic bigotry’ with the zeal of a Spanish Inquisitor, you’d have noticed that I also mentioned Scout groups. Why are you not accusing me of ‘anti-Scouting bigotry’?

The simple truth is that I gave the first two examples that came to mind, which, fairly or not, included Catholic choirs. I might also have mentioned C of E choirs (of which I’ve been a member for much of my life) or boarding schools.

As it happens, I’m very far from anti-Catholic. By the standards of a secular modern, I’m positively pro-Catholic. Western science and individualism owe a lot to Catholicism (to say nothing of the music and architecture). Dismount your hobby horse.

@ Mrs B
I did not say that 4-year olds were sexting. But surely the best way to teach kids to stay safe with social media is to start educating them before they start engaging in risky online activity.
I do not deny that the role of the parents is crucial in the education of children. It would be ridiculous to claim the contrary. But schools play a role too. It is obvious from many of the posts on this blog that not all parents can be trusted to provide their children with factual education in matters of sex and relationships, such as homosexuality, for example.

I am wondering how you manage to stay so cool and resigned to watching our nation disintegrate Mr H.It feels so bad that I often find myself in tears, unbearable to observe.The pieces you have written are the truth and I do not want to whitewash this news but it seems so irreversible.
Just how do you "get over it" ?

Why do you assume Brexit will be chaotic and the chaos will be long lasting? Are New Zealand, Australia and Canada in a permanent state of chaos? Is Iceland in Chaos? Is Swizaland in Chaos?

You choose to believe the same media, and people who told you that if we didn’t join the EU single currency twenty years ago the British economy would collapse. The same people who demanded we join the ERM in 1990. Why do you go on believing them despite the fact they have a track record of being always wrong?

Why do you think the UK is so special/feeble that only it will be in chaos by not being in the EU? Are you aware that 80% of global trade is done outside of the EU? Do you really think European companies will no longer want to trade goods with us as the fifth largest economy in the world?

Remainers are embarrassed at supporting the EU because it forces them to explain why they would prefer to destroy UK democracy. Instead they just claim the world will end, and it will all be chaos. Silly nonsense by people who can’t explain why we can’t govern ourselves.

It’s extraordinary to see how in my lifetime wanting to govern your own country, and make your own laws, and control your own boarders is described as extreme, and crazy. I suspect every Labour member of Paliammet in the 1945-51 govt would have agreed with me on this issue. It’s an example of how mad the liberal/left wing establishment have become.

It might be that you missed the main point of my recent post, possibly my fault. So I'll have another go:

Following the result of the referendum, and a few month's period of glee as the fact that we were leaving sank in, it seemed to me that two or three of the more supportive Brexit papers began to express (and that's not meant as a clue!) doubts about a no-deal departure. Farmers now seemed to be more split than they were, as do the larger retail companies, and the concerns of the car industry/suppliers became widely known.
At present, I'm not aware of any national newspaper that is still ringing the bell for a no-deal Brexit in a few day's time. Are you?

Joshua Wooderson once again letting his phoney "I'm Mr Reasonable I am' mask slip to show his anti-Catholic bigotry. There is no evidence whatsoever to justify his implicit claim that 'Catholic choirs' - which aren't very common these days anyway - pose more of a danger to children than choirs of any other religious denonmination - Christian or non-Christian.

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the moderator has approved them. They must not exceed 500 words. Web links cannot be accepted, and may mean your whole comment is not published.